UTILITY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO RETAIL...
71
UTILITY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO RETAIL MANAGERS A Research Project Presented to the Faculty of The Graziadio Business School Pepperdine University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Organization Development by Jeffrey M. Hottinger August 2018 © 2018 Jeffrey M. Hottinger
Transcript of UTILITY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO RETAIL...
UTILITY OF SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP
TO RETAIL MANAGERS
A Research Project
Presented to the Faculty of
The Graziadio Business School
Pepperdine University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
in
Organization Development
by
Jeffrey M. Hottinger
August 2018
© 2018 Jeffrey M. Hottinger
ii
This research project, completed by
JEFFREY M. HOTTINGER
under the guidance of the Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been
submitted to and accepted by the faculty of The Graziadio Business School in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Date: August 2018
Faculty Committee
Committee Chair, Miriam Y. Lacey, Ph.D.
Committee Member, Terri D. Egan, Ph.D.
Deryck J. van Rensburg, D.B.A., Dean
The Graziadio Business School
iii
Abstract
This mixed-methods study sought to determine the perceived utility of Situational
Leadership amongst retail managers in their work. A sample of 29 retail managers with
training in Situational Leadership was surveyed on their general use of Situational
Leadership, their usage of its specific components, and whether they experienced
potential values of Situational Leadership found in the research literature. A focus group
of five additional retail managers with training in Situational Leadership analyzed the
results of the survey to provide qualitative comments and richer interpretation of the
survey data. The study found that managers use Situational Leadership, including three of
its benefits discovered in prior research, and find it useful although there is bias in the use
of the styles advocated by Situational Leadership and some discrepancies between the
results of this study and prior studies in regard to assessment of employee development
level.
Keywords: Situational Leadership, Management, Retail, Leadership Style,
Development Level
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables.......................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 - Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
Background and History ................................................................................................ 1
Significance of This Study .............................................................................................. 3
Purpose of This Study ..................................................................................................... 6
Research Setting ............................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 2 – Literature Review ................................................................................ 8
Description of Situational Leadership............................................................................ 8
Versions of Situational Leadership .............................................................................. 11
Terminology Confusion ................................................................................................ 14
Weaknesses and Criticisms of Situational Leadership ................................................ 15
Conceptual problems. .............................................................................................................. 16
Lack of predicted findings. ...................................................................................................... 17
Inconsistent measures. ............................................................................................................. 19
Counterpoints to Criticisms of Situational Leadership ............................................... 19
Strengths of Situational Leadership ............................................................................. 21
Additional Benefits of Situational Leadership ............................................................. 23
v
Conclusion of Literature Review .................................................................................. 25
Chapter 3 – Research Design ................................................................................ 27
Participants ................................................................................................................... 28
Demographic data. .................................................................................................................. 29
Experience data. ...................................................................................................................... 29
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 30
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 31
Method .......................................................................................................................... 31
Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 31
Chapter 4 – Results ................................................................................................ 33
Situational Leadership Survey Data ............................................................................ 33
Qualitative responses .................................................................................................... 39
Responses specific to survey questions. ................................................................................... 40
General responses. ................................................................................................................... 40
Results Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 5 – Discussion .......................................................................................... 42
Summary of results ....................................................................................................... 42
Conclusions from results .............................................................................................. 44
Limitations of Study ..................................................................................................... 49
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 51
Recommendations for retail organizations and other managers. ................................................ 51
Recommendations for organization development practitioners. ................................................ 53
vi
Suggestions for further research .................................................................................. 54
References .............................................................................................................. 57
Appendix A: Vocabulary and synonyms used in SL literature............................ 58
Appendix B: Full list of research questions .......................................................... 61
vii
List of Tables
1. Survey Participant Demographic Data ..................................................................... 30
2. Survey Participant Experience Data ......................................................................... 31
3. Question 1: How hard was it for you to start using Situational Leadership (SL)? ..... 34
4. Question 2: How often do you use SL in your work? ............................................... 35
5. Question 3: If and when you use SL, would you say this use is “conscious” and intentional or “unconscious” and intuitive? .................................................................. 35
6. Question 4: How flexible in style do you believe you are as a manager? .................. 36
7. Question 5: Do you attempt to use all four styles?.................................................... 36
8. Question 6: Which style(s) do you prefer? (multiple selections allowed) .................. 36
9. Question 7: Which style(s) do you prefer the least? (multiple selections allowed) .... 37
10. Question 8: Are there any of the styles that you find more difficult to use? ............ 37
11. Question 9: How often do you personalize your management style for the individuals you manage? ............................................................................................................... 38
12. Question 10: How difficult or easy is it to diagnose follower developmental level? .................................................................................................................................... 38
13. Question 11: How often do your assessment of follower developmental level and the self-assessment of that follower align? ......................................................................... 39
14. Question 12: How effective do you find Situation Leadership as a technique for managing? ................................................................................................................... 39
viii
List of Figures
1. Situational Leadership components, variables, and their relative relationships ......... 11
2. SL Theory and SL II model’s respective components for comparison of changes..... 13
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Can a decades-old model address the challenges facing contemporary leaders in an
increasingly complex world? With technology drawing an ever-growing population ever-
closer together, the need for leadership and the demands placed upon leaders are both
magnified in intensity. Into this at-times-chaotic environment, Situational Leadership has
been offering a surprisingly simple solution for several decades, promising to give
managers tools that improve employee outcomes for any team.
Background and History
Situational Leadership (SL) is one of the most popular and widely used leadership
models in management and organizational training (Avery & Ryan, 2002; Papworth,
Milne, & Boak, 2009; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). It is widely praised for its intuitive
appeal and common-sense approach. Despite its popularity, there is significant
disagreement within the literature if it is indeed effective. More specifically, some
research suggests that the model lacks necessary theoretical underpinnings (Graeff, 1997;
Thompson & Vecchio, 2009), that there is insufficient evidence to support the specific
desired effects of SL (Graeff, 1997; Vecchio, 1987), or that the evidence is actually to the
contrary (Blank, Weitzel, & Green, 1990). Authors have long agreed that there is not
enough research on this model (e.g., Northouse, 2013; Yukl, 2013). As a result, it is
notable that a model with so little research support continues to be promoted and utilized
by a large number of businesses and organizations.
Simply put, SL is a model that describes two factors of leadership and two factors of
employee development, and then proposes matching one of a resulting four possible
leadership styles to each of a resulting four possible employee development levels for
2
each specific job task. There have been some changes to SL in the 40 plus years since it
was first introduced and there are now essentially two versions of the model. Broadly
speaking, both versions categorize leadership behaviors as being comprised of
consideration for employees and efforts to initiate structure, in-line with the research and
theory current at the time SL emerged. Employee development level is conceptually
composed of competence and commitment. From these constructs, SL states that properly
matching leadership style to employee development level will yield improved results in
employee satisfaction and job performance (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 2013).
Amongst the preponderance of data that does not directly support the SL model, some
researchers, such as Zigarmi and Roberts (2017), Avery and Ryan (2002), and Thompson
and Glasø (2015), have found that components of SL do seem to align with positive
outcomes for leaders and followers subject to the model. The first component researchers
have emphasized is that general flexibility in leadership style—choosing different
leadership styles at different times, although not necessarily the specific styles proposed
by SL—is beneficial for leaders to practice (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). A second and
related component that is supported by research is the advice to customize and
personalize leadership styles for each individual follower (Avery & Ryan, 2002). Taken
together, these two findings suggest that leaders should change style based on the
situation and not apply a one-size-fits-all approach to everyone. These ideas are
conceptually easy to grasp but at odds with intuitive notions of management that there
may be one best way to lead. For instance, Hersey and Blanchard (1972) themselves
began their investigation into leadership styles by asking the question “what is the best
leadership style?” and continue to frame explanations of SL in this way (Blanchard,
3
Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 2013). Furthermore, SL is in alignment with predominant trends in
psychological theory and practice recommending prioritizing the uniqueness of the
individual over group dynamics (APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence Based
Practice, 2006; The British Psychological Society, 2011). Additionally, differences in
cultural values are important to take into consideration when processing the meaning of
these findings for application of the SL theory globally/across cultures and this flexibility
in style lends itself to cultural adjustments (Can & Aktaş, 2012). Most studies on SL have
been conducted in so-called “Western” organizations where a tendency towards
individualism is more prevalent. Lastly, a third significant finding amongst the research
on SL is a recommendation for leaders to come to an agreement with their followers on
an assessment of the followers’ developmental progress, rather than relying solely on the
independent assessment of one or the other (Thompson & Glasø, 2015). In the language
of one of the theory’s originators: “partnering for performance” (Blanchard et al., 2013)
is essential. With this change in approach, managers and employees work together as
partners in development and management is done with employees and not to them.
Significance of This Study
Given the need for leadership training in many different group settings and SL’s
popularity as a leadership model and training, looking at the research-based benefits of
this model is important. As stated above, although SL has been found to be problematic
in both theory and outcome, there are aspects of the model that have been found to be of
value. From this mix of information, we do not yet have a clear understanding of why SL
continues to be popular. The research that has not found evidence of SL’s predicted
outcomes has been available for decades and only continued to accrue, yet this has not
4
reduced the use of SL within organizations by any apparent measure. There are values
researchers have found within the conceptual framework of SL but not that support the
entirety of the model in any of its versions. There must be other value organizations are
finding from SL beyond what researchers have studied that explain its continued
implementation.
Most research on SL has focused on either testing the theoretical underpinnings of the
model or–more commonly–on attempts to measure its predicted outcomes. The two
primary companies that deliver SL training–Hersey’s Center for Leadership Studies and
the Ken Blanchard Company–advocate for the benefits and effectiveness of the model,
but do not publish data on how recipients of the training feel about it. This focus has left
room to study specifically what leaders value about SL in more depth. Studies have
examined whether leader behavior complies with SL and whether or not it aligns with
follower needs or perceptions, but there has not been significant research exploring why
managers enjoy SL. Even as important new studies on SL have continued to periodically
appear e.g., Thompson & Glasø (2015); Zigarmi & Roberts (2017), only one study has
specifically looked into what benefits leaders have found in their experience of SL
(Avery & Ryan, 2002). More specifically, Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study found
connections to the broad positive themes of SL mentioned above (i.e., use of different
leadership styles, personalized approaches to individual employees, and partnership
between managers and employees for employee development), even without specifically
looking for them. Replicating and expanding this inquiry may shed further light on these
connections, in particular, leaders’ perceptions of what makes SL useful. A further
investigation into what value managers perceive from SL, and whether there are
5
connections between what managers value and the SL principles supported by research,
could provide a possible answer to the question of why SL continues to be used despite
an overall lack of supporting research evidence.
In addition to the three most prominent threads in SL research outlined above, some
smaller points from the research are also important to mention. Firstly, SL studies
generally have been conducted within military, higher education, and healthcare settings,
and researchers have noted the importance of further investigations into SL which look at
a larger variety of work environments (Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017). Second, some
researchers have suggested that a possible benefit of SL is that it is simple enough to be
recalled readily and applied even in hectic situations—and that its simplicity may have
something to do with its wide utilization, rather than the details of the theory or its results
(Avery & Ryan, 2002). Thirdly, SL research has found most support for style one of
leadership which is recommended for employees with the least experience and ability
(Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). Lastly, studies have suggested that the number of
employees supervised has been found to be a significant variable for managers’ ability to
apply SL, and that having too many employees to supervise can vastly reduce the ability
to invest in employee development (Avery & Ryan, 2002).
Few studies have looked at the impact of SL on retail work settings, which is notable
because managers in such environments tend to have less formal job training than in
other sectors which suggests they may benefit from specific leadership training.
Furthermore, employees in retail environments often begin with little experience or
training and this makes this context a good test of SL’s leadership style recommendations
beginning with style one, which is recommended for employees with little experience and
6
consists of high task direction and low support. Lastly, in many retail environments
managers have many responsibilities and many employees to supervise, indicating this
context may be a good test of SL’s applicability in such environments. This industry also
has its own significance within the modern world; both serving as a growing employer in
the new economy and also itself being an industry undergoing massive change and threat
from new technologies and competition (Corkery, 2017).
Both for the benefits of the ongoing viability of SL and for those who might benefit
from being trained in it, there is a need in the research to understand more about what
drives SL’s popularity. The managers who have been trained in SL may have more to say
about what specifically they appreciate about it. There can also be a stronger connection
between the benefits found in research on SL and the experience those undergoing the
training are taking away from it.
Purpose of This Study
This purpose of this study was to gather manager perceptions of the utility of
Situational Leadership in their work.
Research Setting
Managers were asked questions to determine if they value the same aspects of SL that
researchers have found to be beneficial. The responses of the managers can be used to
uncover reasons for SL’s popularity as well as to assess if SL training delivers the key
benefits revealed in the research.
The research subjects in this study were managers from retail environments who tend
to supervise a large number of employees and who have multiple reporting relationships
7
to other managers. Managers were asked about their experience with SL in general and
also specifically around important themes found in other research. Managers were asked
about flexibility in leadership style, personalization of leadership approach to each
follower, and collaborating with followers on an assessment of the follower’s
developmental level. Managers were also asked about the intuitiveness of SL, their use of
the method, their experience, and their overall perceived utility of SL.
The results of this research may illuminate whether there are other areas of value
from SL beyond its predicted outcomes and theoretical problems that might explain its
continued popularity. Additionally, this research project attempts to draw connections
between valuable aspects of SL found in previous research studies and perceived value
managers take from SL as an enhancement of the significance of these valuable aspects.
Lastly, this study indicates areas for further investigation into the impact and value that
SL imparts upon managers as a contribution to the possible needs and benefits for
manager training in general and the possible further enhancement of management as a
human activity.
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this study was to gather manager perceptions of the utility of SL in
their work. A thorough description of SL follows, as well as a review of the research
literature published on this topic. Criticisms of SL from the literature are outlined as well
as benefits that have been identified.
Description of Situational Leadership
Situational Leadership (SL) was first developed in 1969 by Paul Hersey and Ken
Blanchard. Known then as Life Cycle Theory of Leadership, it was renamed as
Situational Leadership Theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1972), and eventually split into two
versions, Situational Leadership and Situational Leadership II, in 1985 (Avery & Ryan,
2002; Thompson & Glasø, 2015; Thompson & Veccio, 2009). Thompson and Vecchio
(2009) have also proposed a Situational Leadership III model in conjunction with their
test of the validity of the previous versions of SL, but their version has not been picked
up by anyone else and in its pursuit of validity sacrifices much of the specificity and
prescriptive nature of SL (Northouse, 2013).
SL emerged from a body of related research and theory on management approaches
and in its long history has gone through a few notable changes. Precursors to Hersey and
Blanchard’s (1972) work include Reddin (1967), who defined management as having two
key variables in relationship orientation and task orientation. Several authors and
researchers were dealing contemporaneously with these same two variables of
management that are key to SL. Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1960) discussed autocratic,
democratic, and laissez-faire leadership styles as involving varying combinations of task
and relational leadership behavior. Others have considered initiating structure and
9
consideration as key management behaviors (Blanchard et al., 1993; Judge, Piccolo, &
Ilies, 2004). Korman (1966) also dealt with initiating structure and consideration as
important components of leadership behavior; describing a curvilinear relationship
between the two. SL can also be considered closely related and one among a body of
contingency theories of management, including Fiedler’s (1967) Contingency Theory and
House’s (1971) Path-Goal Theory, which lay out various approaches to matching a style
of leadership to a specific context (e.g., if situation A exists, take action one). SL’s matrix
of high and low combinations of relationship and task behaviors can be considered a
simpler way of organizing what Blake and Mouton (1964) arranged into their Leadership
Grid, first introduced in the early 1960s.
Into this environment, Hersey and Blanchard (1972) outlined their theory of SL. In
SL, leadership style is composed of a combination of initiating structure and
consideration, called ‘task’ and ‘relationship’ in the first iterations of the model, and the
contextual variable that determines which style would be more effective is the maturity
level of the subordinate for a specific task (Silverthorne & Wang, 2001; Zigarmi &
Roberts, 2017). Therefore, a central principle of SL is a recommendation to match
leadership style to characteristics of a subordinate’s level of development. Hersey and
Blanchard (1972) describe the two variables of task and relationship focus both as able to
be used in either high or low degrees by managers and the combination of these creates
four possible management styles. The first style (S1) is composed of high task focus and
low relationship focus and is named ‘Telling’, the second style (S2) is composed of high
both task and relationship focus and named ‘Selling’, the third style (S3) is high
relationship and low task focus called ‘Participating’, and the final style (S4) is low both
10
task and relationship and known as ‘Delegating’. Having defined four management
styles, the authors also define four possible maturity levels for subordinates and ascribe a
corresponding appropriate management style to each. Subordinate maturity is comprised
of two variables (subordinate will and skill), also called willingness and ability. The first
maturity level (M1) is construed as low skill and low will, the second (M2) as some skill
and will, M3 as high skill and some will, and M4 as high skill and high will. Given these
mappings of subordinate maturity levels and corresponding leadership styles for each, SL
would recommend for a case where an M1 subordinate with low skill and will is working,
that the best results would be achieved through a manager applying an S1 style of high
task focus. As that subordinate or others progress through the stages of maturity, the
manager would increase relationship focus while later reducing task focus and eventually
falling back to low task and relationship focus in a delegating stance. In summary, M1
subordinates are best served by S1 style management, M2 by S2, M3 by S3, and M4 by
the S4 style of delegation. Figure 1 shows a graphic depiction of these styles and their
orientation to managerial task and relationship focus.
Figure 1
Situational Leadership components, variables, and their relative relationships
11
Versions of Situational Leadership
This conceptualization and mapping of leadership style to subordinate maturity level
is the essential concept of the Situational Leadership Theory as first presented by Hersey
and Blanchard (1972) and it remains at the core in subsequent revisions, despite some
changes (Graeff, 1997). The most significant change to SL came in the form of
Situational Leadership II when Blanchard split from Hersey both for development of the
model as well as in their business of selling and promoting SL training (Avery & Ryan,
2002; Graeff, 1997). Blanchard et al. (1993) describes the changes in Situational
Leadership II as having come as the result of ongoing research as well as partly in answer
to criticisms the theory had received up to that point.
12
The most updated version of Situational Leadership II (SLII) can be found in the
work of Blanchard et al. (2015). The changes in SLII included the use of new terms as
well as some underlying changes to components of the theory (Avery & Ryan, 2002;
Graeff, 1997). The first terminology change in SLII is that Blanchard et al. (1993)
referred to SL as a model rather than a theory. Some researchers have suggested that the
main motivation for this change is to protect SLII from some of the significant criticisms
it has received on theoretical grounds by removing the word theory (Graeff, 1997).
Further terminology changes included renaming the leadership styles from Telling,
Selling, Participating, and Delegating to Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and
Delegating. Blanchard et al. (1993) notes that this was done to create more clarity by
reinforcing the two leadership components of Directing and Supporting as well as to
finesse some of the implications that might have unintentionally come from the previous
labels, such as that only S3 allowed participating. To this end, subordinate ‘Maturity’ was
also relabeled as ‘Development Level’ to remove associations of age from the concept.
Similarly, the components of the now-named Development Level are relabeled as
Competence and Commitment rather than Ability and Willingness (Blanchard et al.,
1993). Figure 2 illustrates the changes between the two main versions of Situational
Leadership.
Figure 2
SL Theory and SL II model’s respective components for comparison of changes
13
These terminology do not impact the underlying philosophy of SL, but some changes are
slightly more significant than others (Graeff, 1997). Chief amongst these changes is the
adaptation of the definitions of subordinate maturity or development level. While still
composed of two factors, SLII changes the 1st development or maturity level’s definition
from low competence or ability and low commitment or willingness to low competence
but high commitment, reasoning that new employees are often eager to start and succeed
at a new job or assignment (Blanchard et al., 1993). In this way, the definition of D1 is
now equal to what was previously M2. The changes in subsequent development levels
also contrast some with the earlier maturity level definitions, and additionally introduce
another change: moving from the binary way that the first Situational Leadership Theory
(SLT) defined the two components (high or low) to more of a spectrum. In SLII, D2 is
14
now low commitment with some competence whereas the corresponding M2 in SLT was
high willingness with low ability. Commitment/willingness has been reversed from high
to low and competence/ability has been changed from low to an in-between level of
‘some’. This muddying of the waters continues with D3 now switching M3’s high
competence and low commitment (translated to SLII vocabulary) to high competence and
‘variable’ commitment (Blanchard et al., 1993). While Blanchard et al. (1993) lays out
compelling reasoning for making these changes, the mere shift from a binary model to
one with a spectrum of possibilities introduces new complexity to the theoretical
underpinnings of SLII that were not present in SLT, some of which muddies the ability to
validate the theory in research settings (Thompson & Vecchio, 2009). It is also unclear
how much of these changes were made based on merely re-thinking and how much were
made with the support of data, as only some of the data is shared in the published books
that advocate the model.
Terminology Confusion
In addition to the specific and intentional changes in terminology between SLT and
SLII, there are many other words that are used amongst the research on SL and related
concepts that are not always clearly defined. The source material from Hersey and
Blanchard (1972) is clear and consistent with terminology, but follow-up research does
not adhere to the standards set out by SL’s creators. Business jargon, such as managers,
leaders, management, and leadership are often conflated or used interchangeably in some
works where elsewhere those terms have been disambiguated. Similarly, group-members,
subordinates, followers, and other synonyms are used to refer to those a leader manages
(or a manager leads) without a distinction necessarily being made about whether there are
15
any differences conceptually. Lastly, the terms ‘willingness or commitment’ and ‘ability
or competence’ that Hersey and Blanchard (1972) have used in their work correspond
broadly to concepts from the broader research pool of ‘initiating structure and
consideration’ which in turn have also been referred to by yet additional terms such as
‘task and relationship’ (Judge et al., 2004). Throughout the forthcoming review of
research, these terms will be used interchangeably unless a specific meaning is intended
or was noted in the study where it was used. In that case, efforts will be made to draw
attention to changing terminology from one study to the next when appropriate and
clarify definition and intent when possible. See Appendix A for a list of synonyms used
within the literature on Situational Leadership.
Weaknesses and Criticisms of Situational Leadership
An initial and oft-cited problem with SL is that there is not enough research on it,
especially considering how popular and widely used the model is (Papworth, Milne, &
Boak, 2009; Thompson & Vecchio, 2009; Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017). Claims of SL’s
popularity range from the vague but grand; “one of the most widely known” (Papworth et
al., 2009; Vecchio, 1987), to more specific and significant: “over 3 million managers
trained” (Avery & Ryan, 2002, p. 244) and “used in 70% of Fortune 500 companies with
14 million trained” by The Center for Leadership Studies (2018, para. 1). SL research has
been claimed to amount to over 50 dissertations, master’s theses, and research papers
(Blanchard et al., 1993). That said, other researchers complain that this number cannot be
verified and its significance is reduced because a high proportion of these studies have
not been published (Graeff, 1997).
16
Conceptual problems. Amongst the research that has been published, much of it can
be categorized as either critical of theoretical aspects of SL or as describing how its
predictions are not born out in studies. Criticisms of the theoretical aspects of SL range
from curiosity on how the leadership styles were paired with the development levels to
questioning of the nature of development levels (Graeff, 1997). For example, how can the
change between SLT’s M1 with low willingness and SLII’s D1 with high commitment be
explained theoretically? The pairing of leadership styles with a corresponding
development style: S1 for D1, S2 for D2, etc., is a key feature of SL (Thompson & Glasø,
2015). Hersey and Blanchard (1972) go further than these one-to-one pairings, describing
how after the ideal matching of leadership style and development level there are also
second-best options, sometimes a third-best, and a worst pairing (Goodson, 1989). For
instance, Hersey and Blanchard (1972) would say that for an employee at a D1
development level for a particular task, a S1 leadership style would be best, S2 second
best, S3 third best, and S4 the worst. For a D2 employee, S2 would be best, S1 and S3
would be second best, and S4 would be worst. However, researchers have pointed out
that with four leadership styles and four development levels, there is a matrix of 16
possible leadership style and development level interactions, an extent to which SL does
not appear to delve satisfactorily by focusing primarily only on the recommended four
matching leadership styles and development levels (Avery & Ryan, 2002).
Within the SL concept of development level, several researchers have taken issue
with the components of competence and commitment, especially since SLII defined them
as being more than just binary concepts. Thompson and Glasø (2015) point out some
difficulties with the non-linear conceptualization of the development of competence and
17
commitment and ways in which it differs from other research on development.
Additionally, Papworth (2009) questions if the limitation of development to only two
components does not too severely abstract away other important factors that contribute
significantly to an employee’s development level and the knowledge a leader needs to
respond effectively and accurately to that development level. In the SL model,
commitment and competence are important notions, but these researchers are asking to
know more about the relationship between the ideas. Might commitment create
competence? Could an employee develop competence without going through the project
changes in commitment that SL maps? The Ken Blanchard Companies (2017) have
attempted to answer questions about development level with a review of related research
and theory, but a full resolution has not been presented.
Lack of predicted findings. Several researchers have taken the model of SL and
constructed studies to test if its predictions are found to be true. There is diversity in these
studies in many aspects, including populations studied, research design, and measures
and assessments used. Some of this variety contributes to the strength of the overall body
of research by showing similar findings in different contexts while in other ways the
variety creates dissonance within the research by making results incomparable.
Papworth et al. (2009) demonstrates a common finding across many research studies
on SL by finding that results only support SL’s recommendation of an S1 style of
leadership with no support for the other three styles. However, even though this study did
not find specific support for S2, S3, and S4, it did find support for the overall arc of
leadership style match to development level in that as subordinates develop, managers
reduce directive behavior. Additionally, Papworth et al. (2009) was constructed in a
18
peculiar way that reduces the credibility of the research results. This study examined the
proportion of talking done by leader and subordinate in feedback sessions, presuming that
all sessions were equally successful and reasoning that the proportion of talking by the
leader versus the subordinate would be progressively less through progression of the
leadership styles from S1 to S4. There are several issues with this approach. First, by
starting with a presumption that all feedback sessions were equally successful, the study
eliminated any possibility of judging the degree of success from each of SL’s described
leadership styles. Second, by relying on merely a count of words spoken, the study does
not bring any qualitative evaluation of the language used to bear which may be too
reductive of a measure of a conversation. Finally, the study was done on subject leaders
who did not specifically have any exposure to SL training. This presumes that SL would
be emergent from any successful instance of leadership which, in turn, suggests that SL is
the only true and correct way to understand successful leadership relationships between
leaders and team-members. No SL descriptions have made such a claim, and Blanchard
at al.’s (1993) SLII model specifically changes the description of SL as a theory to a
model to avoid this type of misunderstanding (and criticism). Other researchers (Avery,
2001) have designed studies for subjects who have not been trained in SL in ways that are
additive to the literature. For example, this study aimed to discover latent preferences for
particular leadership styles in a population.
In one of the earliest tests of SL, Vecchio (1987) found support for the S1 style of
leadership and less for the other three styles. Blank et al. (1990) found support for S1 in a
relatively extensive test of leadership styles along the vectors of task and relationship
behavior. These and other studies while validating the S1 style recommended by SL have
19
brought significant doubt to the presumed values of styles 2 through 4 (Thompson &
Vecchio, 2009).
Inconsistent measures. Across the body of research done on SL, there is an
inconsistent use of measures. To evaluate leadership style, a Leadership Effectiveness
and Adaptability Description questionnaire from Hersey and Blanchard (1972), LMX
(Thompson & Vecchio, 2009), and most commonly the LBDQ-XII (The Ohio State
Leadership Studies, 1962) are all used. To evaluate employee development level, the
Employee Readiness Scale (Fernandez and Vecchio, 1997), Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (Porter et al., 1974), and a performance rating scale from Liden and Graen
(1980) are most commonly used. Several additional measures are used in individual
studies, such as a job satisfaction instrument (Carlos Do Rego Furtado et al., 2011) and
the content analytic approach (Papworth et al. 2009). This plethora of measures used is
commendable in the wide-spread efforts it represents to find the best way to measure
somewhat complex components of both leader and subordinate qualities. However, it also
makes comparison of different studies difficult and possibly points to further confusion
around the conceptual definition of factors within the SL models. Additionally, there are
some criticisms that the measures used in SL are self-referential and thus do not establish
independent data points (Northouse, 2013). Given the aforementioned limited amount of
research on SL, this use of differing instruments further dilutes the pool of data.
Counterpoints to Criticisms of Situational Leadership
In discussing the history of SL through its first 25 years, Blanchard et al. (1993)
acknowledges an insufficient quantity of research around the model but also suggests that
many studies completed at that time had not fully understood the model. Graeff (1997),
20
however, lays the blame for any researcher confusion back at the feet of the authors of
SL. Similarly, looking back on an uneven history of support for SL in research, Zigarmi
and Roberts (2017) acknowledge a dearth of research and ‘uneven support’ amongst
research completed for the model, but find more support among more recent studies due
to innovating research design. These opinions come from those directly involved in the
promotion and selling of SL training, and while their admission of uneven support does
not dismiss the criticisms of SL, they are correct to point out that there are significant
positive aspects that exist within the research and literature on SL as well.
An additional large discrepancy often found in the literature on SL is a generalization
from a focus on a specific task, as both versions of SL advocate clearly, to a broader
concept of employee development level that is not tied to a particular unit of work or job
task. This may be a tempting extension of SL to broaden its possible application, but it is
specifically contrary to the original source material for all versions. Research on SL
should be careful to adhere to the specifics of the model or explain how and why a more
general interpretation of SL’s concepts is being used to avoid subjecting SL to criticism
that is unfair and inappropriate.
Regarding the dearth of research that exists on SL, it is also likely that there is
significantly more data that has been collected on SL that is outside the domain of
published research literature and within the confines of the organizations that conduct SL
training or–perhaps more significantly–within the organizations which have implemented
SL training for their employees. It appears possible that this data may be considered
confidential, proprietary, a competitive advantage, or otherwise too sensitive to share
outside the organization that may have collected it. This could also explain why
21
published research has been concentrated amongst public institutions such as the military
or research-oriented organizations such as hospitals and schools.
Strengths of Situational Leadership
Beyond the debate about the shortcomings of SL, there have been several specific
strengths of SL articulated in research studies. Some of these benefits of SL also suffer
from the general criticism that there is not enough research yet to prove these
suggestions, but nonetheless many promising paths have been laid out across several
studies. The three most significant points of value found within SL appear to lie in how it
promotes flexibility in management style (Northouse, 2013; Silverthorne & Wang, 2001;
Yukl, 2013), how it promotes a personalized relationship between a manager and each of
their reports individually (Northouse, 2013), and the benefits that can come when
alignment of manager and employee assessment of employee development level is
achieved (Thompson & Glasø, 2015).
A powerful line of thinking within the literature on SL is that the best leadership style
varies depending on the situation. While this concept appears simple on face value, it
importantly contrasts to commonly held perspectives that there is an objectively best style
of leadership and is also at odds with common paternal or ‘Confucian’ attitudes and
approaches to leader/subordinate relationships that are latent in many cultural norms
(Silverthorne & Wang, 2001). Research has also shown that even amongst those trained
in SL, there are often preferred styles of leadership within cultural groups (Avery, 2001;
Yeakey, 2002). SL’s guidance to change leadership style based on circumstances is a
useful contrast to these tendencies to use just one leadership style and can lead to a more
diverse and positive set of outcomes (Silverthorne & Wang, 2001).
22
A second value that can be taken from SL is that each employee that a leader
supervises would benefit from a customized and personalized management approach. Not
only should a manager adapt their style to the situations they are managing, but their
employees’ development would benefit from a considered and personalized style of
leadership that lines up with their development level (Northouse, 2013). In this way, SL
can positively impact organizational results related to the long-term development of the
organization’s employees as well as the results from a specific and time-limited situation.
These two benefits of SL build to a third positive outcome that can be achieved if a
manager and a subordinate can come to an agreement on the subordinate’s development
level, and a resulting type of management they would benefit from given this
development level. This benefit logically follows from adapting leadership style to
situations and personalizing leadership style per individual, but encounters more
obstacles in real-world practice. It seems managers tend to view themselves as quite good
at assessing their subordinates while these subordinates commonly do not rank the
manager’s abilities so highly (Avery & Ryan, 2002; Carlos Do Rego Furtado et al.,
2011). Additionally, when subordinates rate themselves they do not come up with the
same assessment that managers do. Avery and Ryan (2002) found that managers think
assessing is not very hard and readily accepted this aspect of the SL model with little
concern over any possibility of mistake. Even if leaders were able to accurately assess an
employee, they might not apply the matching style SL recommends as Furtado et al.
(2011) say that leaders’ self-assessment of their own leadership style usage and flexibility
does not agree with how their employees assess them. A solution to these problems is
offered by Thompson and Glasø (2015), who introduce a ‘congruence approach’ where
23
agreement between leaders’ and followers’ rating of followers’ development level is
sought-after. Blanchard et al. (2013) describes a ‘partnering for success’ approach with
similar intent. These efforts to encourage managers and employees to work together on
assessment and a corresponding leadership style as a path for development requires
additional effort but can avoid problems in disagreement and mismatched leadership
styles which can be a key takeaway of a SL implementation for managers.
To summarize, there are three important benefits of SL found across research that
may serve to explain some of the model’s popularity as well as some of the benefits from
implementing it as a training for managers. The first is to encourage more flexibility in
leadership style by managers instead of any approach that suggests there is one best way
to manage. The second benefit comes when a manager specifically customizes a
leadership approach to an individual employee based on that individual’s development
level, which is an extension of flexibility in style by situation to the individual’s
development. The third important benefit comes from a leader and a subordinate
partnering to develop a shared assessment of the subordinate’s development level and the
appropriate leadership style to use for developmental progress.
Additional Benefits of Situational Leadership
Avery and Ryan (2002) found that the managers surveyed could think of no better
management model than SL, so SL may be a superior model in the minds of those who
are trained it in or it may be the only model people know. Respondents to several surveys
have pointed out that SL is the only training that they have been exposed to, and that it is
simply better than nothing or acting on intuition. SL is also known to be relatively simple
conceptually (Avery & Ryan, 2002) and its self-evident nature makes it easy to grasp and
24
consequently easy to teach. Avery and Ryan (2002) also found that this simplicity is an
asset for another reason; that it can be more easily remembered and recalled in the heat of
a moment when it might be applied. A model easy enough to be readily recalled could be
important for managers who feel tight on time, as even some managers who like SL
found that time constraints in their job were one of the largest obstacles to using it. If it is
amongst the simplest and this is still a problem, no more complicated model would
logically survive these type of work environments. Managers reported this stress from
either having too much work or more specifically having too many employees to
supervise (Avery & Ryan, 2002). Another related strength of SL is that it is prescriptive
in nature, recommending what managers should do in various situations (Northouse,
2013).
Previous calls for future research have included requests for longitudinal studies to
better discover the long-term outcomes of SL use, as well as statements of the need to test
it in different environments (Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017). The organizations have ranged
from higher education, to the military, to hospitals, and beyond; but more evidence from
more contexts could still provide more strength to the benefits of SL or possibly notes of
differentiation on what aspects apply best in what environment.
Zigarmi and Roberts (2017) outlined benefits of new vectors for which SL might
offer value. Since SL remains very popular, it is useful to know whether it is effective as
many studies have sought to discover or prove. Additionally, SL’s popularity may be
evidence in itself of the value SL carries and more direct research into what those who
receive the training feel could be a source of discovery of these additional values. Should
specific values be found, they in turn could be emphasized more in future SL training
25
delivery. Amongst the literature, only Avery and Ryan (2002) directly aim to discover
from managers who have been trained in and use SL what its value is. Their study gathers
data across several industries in Australia and is additionally informed by an earlier study
(Avery, 2001) conducted on the Australian manager audience at large to learn about their
preferences in leadership styles. While this study is very illuminating on the value seen
by SL trained managers, its sample size of 17 leaves room for more data to be collected
outright as well as from different populations.
In addition to expansion to a larger sample size, Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study could
be a greater contribution to the literature if enhanced by specific inquiries into the values
of SL found in other research. Their study was conducted as a series of interviews with
managers who had received training in SL. From the conversations, Avery and Ryan
(2002) learned that managers found SL to be appealing for its intuitiveness and
simplicity, ease of application, and perceived usefulness to their management
responsibilities. The researchers were surprised to discover the respondents reported that
assessing employee development was relatively easy. They also discovered an awareness
of the need for flexibility in managerial style, but a problematic avoidance of using SL’s
style one.
Conclusion of Literature Review
SL has enjoyed a lengthy and prestigious popularity in the workplace but has
encountered significant criticisms within academic and research literature. However, this
criticism has not seemed to impact the popularity of the SL models, nor does it directly
address this popularity. While several studies on SL have found some benefits, only one
appears to have specifically asked managers trained in SL what they like about the model
26
(Avery & Ryan, 2002). Little research has been done to explore if there is a connection
between the positive aspects of SL and the reasons why it is enjoyable or valued by those
who have been trained in it.
Criticism of SL has suggested that there are weaknesses in its theoretical foundations
and research has not found supporting evidence–or has found conflicting evidence–for
many of the principles of the model. Important potential benefits of SL have been found,
including encouraging flexibility in management style, promoting personalized
approaches to management style for each employee’s development, and advocating for
the creation of a mutually agreed-upon assessment of an employee’s development level
between that employee and her manager. However, these have not been correlated with
the impact of SL training on managers. Some additional aspects of SL that appear
beneficial include its simplicity, memorability, and its prescriptive nature.
Calls for further research on SL cover a vast span of possibilities, partly due to the
often-mentioned lack of a significant body of research on this popular model to begin
with. In addition to many suggestions for very specific studies looking into the details of
SL (Blanchard et al., 1993), other broader requests include wishes for longitudinal studies
and studies across more organizational contexts (Zigarmi & Roberts, 2017). It also
appears from a survey of the literature that there are few investigations into the ongoing
popularity of SL with only Avery and Ryan (2002) directly exploring this question and
possibly no published research into the connections between SL’s popularity and the
positive aspects of the model found across the literature.
27
Chapter 3: Research Design
The purpose of this study is to gather manager perceptions of the utility of SL in their
work. An important study by Avery and Ryan (2002) which surveyed managers who had
been trained in SL is the only study in the literature that directly addressed manager’s
assessments of SL. This chapter describes the participants of the study, the procedures
used in the study, and its measures. The method of data collection and data analysis are
also outlined.
This study reproduces Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study in a new context of retail
managers and extends it with questions specifically designed to address the advantages of
SL described in the literature. Restated briefly, these areas from the literature include:
• Being flexible in leadership style
• Customizing leadership style for each employee
• Coming to an agreement on employee development level between the
employee and the manager
While Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study was conducted via loosely structured
interviews in order to gather deeper insights and rich data, this study is more structured as
it is intended to answer specific questions stemming from Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study
and other research as discussed in Chapter 2. Retail managers who have had SL training
took an online survey to gather their input. After the survey data was collected, a
discussion group was formed to look for possible interpretations of the data and to
provide richer data in the form of comments and insights.
28
Participants
Participants in this study are managers with experience in a retail setting who have
undergone training in SL. Some of the participants invited have taken SL training given
by the researcher and others have received training from other trainers. Data collection
did not determine which trainer provided the SL training. Eligible participants indicated
that they had both experience managing in a retail environment and training in SL.
Participants were recruited from the researcher’s extended professional network and
thus the sample is non-random. Retail companies the researcher has professional contacts
with include Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, Warby Parker, and more. It should be
noted that the current research was not restricted to these companies if a participant was
found from another retail company. The researcher invited his professional contacts to
participate and requested that they share the invitation with other qualified potential
subjects whom they know so that the sample would snowball to a larger size. The
researcher’s professional network is mainly within the United States but also extends to
Australia, Canada, China, England, Macau, Mexico, and Hong Kong. Participants were
not asked what country they were from in the study. Participants were given access to a
brief online summary of SL to aid in their recollection of its primary components before
taking the study survey.
The survey was taken by 29 participants, although not all participants completed the
entire question set. For some questions, as few as 20 people answered. The maximum
number of responses to a single question was 24.
29
Demographic data. Basic demographic data is presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Survey Participant Demographic Data Gender Individuals Percent
Female 6 25% Male 18 75%
Age Individuals Percent
25 - 34 8 33.33% 35 - 44 12 50% 45 - 54 4 16.67%
n = 29
Experience data. Data was captured on amount of experience in management, level
of education, as well as time since training in SL in Table 2.
30
Table 2
Survey Participant Experience Data Year of experience Frequency Percentage
1-3 years 1 4.17% 3-6 9 37.50% 6-10 4 16.67%
10-15 4 16.67% 15+ 6 25%
Level of education
High school 2 8.33%
Some college 8 33.33%
Bachelor’s degree 13 54.17%
Graduate school 1 4.17%
Years since training
0-3 6 26.08% 3-6 12 52.17% 6-10 3 13.04%
10-15 2 8.68% n = 29
Procedure
Subjects who responded to the survey invitation affirmatively were informed of the
voluntary and confidential nature of the study. The study was designed to not collect
identifiable information. Limited demographic information on gender, educational level,
and experience was collected in the survey. Additional information on time since the
most recent SL training was collected. Consent was obtained at the beginning of the
survey.
31
Measures
The measures chosen for this study were created to reproduce Avery and Ryan’s (2002)
study and to address the research questions particular to this study. While Avery and
Ryan’s (2002) study was exploratory in nature, used intensity sampling, and conducted
interviews with some quantitative questions, this study was primarily quantitative for
consistency of results with an option provided for respondents to reply at more length.
The original research material from Avery and Ryan (2002) could not be obtained, so this
study reconstructs questions from their published work. Questions were either reproduced
directly from earlier studies or derived from the findings of earlier studies and are marked
as such. The full list of questions asked of each participant can be found in Appendix B.
Questions 1-4 and 9-12 were answered by a Likert scale of 1-5 with 1 indicating low,
infrequently, or not very and 5 indicating high, frequently, or very. Questions 6-8 were
answered by multiple choice with multiple selections allowed from the following four
options; 1) Style one: directing/telling, 2) Style two: coaching/selling, 3) Style three:
supporting/participating, 4) Style four: delegating. The final question serving to allow for
optional additional feedback to be shared.
Method
Study participants answered the questions via a Qualtrics online survey.
Data Analysis Procedures
The collected data from the survey was analyzed for comparison to Avery and Ryan’s
(2002) study, to identify additional trends, to answer the primary research question of
what the perceived utility of SL to retail managers is, and to assess the secondary
32
research question of whether benefits of SL found in research are perceived or
demonstrated by managers. The data is presented in chapter 4 and the comparison and
analysis is presented in chapter 5.
33
Chapter 4: Results
This project sought to fulfill the following purpose: to ascertain the perceived utility
of SL by retail managers in their work. The results of the quantitative and qualitative
findings from the research survey are presented in this chapter. The survey was
completed by 29 respondents, although not all respondents answered each question.
Results were then reviewed with a focus group composed of five retail managers who
met the eligibility criteria to participate in the study but were not participants to gain a
deeper understanding of their meaning.
Situational Leadership Survey Data
13 questions about SL were asked in the survey (Appendix B). Responses to each
question will be presented individually. Not every participant answered every question.
Question 1 (Table 3) was intended to determine if indeed SL is perceived as easy to
use as it is often described in the literature, as discussed in Chapter 2. Over 59% of
respondents indicated that SL was either somewhat easy or extremely easy to start using.
Table 3
Question 1: How hard was it for you to start using Situational Leadership (SL)?
Extremely easy 1 response 4.55% Somewhat easy 12 54.55%
Neither easy nor difficult 4 18.18% Somewhat difficult 5 22.73% Extremely difficult 0 0%
n = 29
34
Question 2 (Table 4) was intended to determine if managers use SL in their work
after receiving training in it. Over 68% of respondents indicated that they used SL either
most of the time or always.
Table 4
Question 2: How often do you use SL in your work?
Never 0 responses 0% Sometimes 4 18.18%
About half the time 3 13.64% Most of the time 12 54.54%
Always 3 13.64% n = 29
Question 3 (Table 5) was intended to discover if SL is an intuitive theory as described
in the literature and discussed in Chapter 2. Over 45% of respondents indicated that their
use of SL was sometimes or more unconscious or intuitive with only approximately 9%
indicating somewhat conscious and none indicating conscious/intentional.
Table 5
Question 3: If and when you use SL, would you say this use is “conscious” and intentional or “unconscious” and intuitive?
Unconscious/intuitive 5 responses 22.72%
Somewhat unconscious 5 22.72% Sometimes unconscious and sometimes
conscious 10 45.45%
Somewhat conscious 2 9.09% Conscious/intentional 0 0%
n = 29
Question 4 (Table 6) was intended to… (This table does not have a blurb about it).
No matter what you write here, make sure that Table 6 starts at the top of the next page.
35
Table 6
Question 4: How flexible in style to you believe you are as a manager?
Always use one style 0 responses 0% Mostly use one style 2 9.09% Sometimes use multiple styles 5 22.72% Often use multiple styles 12 54.54% Always use multiple styles 3 13.64% n = 29
Question 5 (Table 7) was intended to determine if managers follow SL’s advocacy for
using multiple styles, which was also discussed as a significant potential positive of SL in
Chapter 2. Over 90% of respondents indicated that they sometimes or more often used
multiple styles.
Table 7
Question 5: Do you attempt to use all four styles?
Yes 20 responses 90.90% No 2 9.09%
n = 29
Question 6 (Table 8) was intended to discover tendencies amongst respondents to
prefer one or more styles over others. Over 77% of respondents indicated that they prefer
style three while the next most preferred was style two (31%).
Table 8
Question 6: Which style(s) do you prefer? (multiple selections allowed)
Style 1: Directing/telling 3 responses 13.64% Style 2: Coaching/selling 7 31.82%
Style 3: Supporting/participating 17 77.27% Style 4: Delegating 3 13.64%
n = 29
36
Question 7 (Table 9) was intended to discover which styles respondents do not prefer.
75% of respondents prefer style one the least. None of the respondents to this question
selected more than one answer.
Table 9
Question 7: Which style(s) do you prefer the least? (multiple selections allowed)
Style 1: Directing/telling 15 responses 75% Style 2: Coaching/selling 1 5%
Style 3: Supporting/participating 2 10% Style 4: Delegating 2 10%
n = 29
Question 8 (Table 10) was intended to discover which styles respondents find more
difficult to use. 40% of respondents found style one to be more difficult to use. Multiple
selections were allowed. Of the 20 responses to this question, only one selected multiple
styles.
Table 10
Question 8: Are there any of the styles that you find more difficult to use?
No, all styles are equally easy to use 3 responses 15% Style 1 (Directing/telling) is more difficult to use 8 40% Style 2 (Coaching/selling) is more difficult to use 5 25%
Style 3 (Supporting/participating) is more difficult to use 1 5% Style 4 (Delegating) is more difficult to use 4 20%
n = 29
Question 9 (Table 11) was intended to discover the degree to which managers
personalize their style for each individual who reports to them, which is a significant
possible benefit to SL as discussed in Chapter 2. 65% of respondents indicated that they
personalized their style most or all of the time.
37
Table 11
Question 9: How often do you personalize your management style for the individuals you manage?
I do not personalize my management style for specific individuals 0 responses 0%
Sometimes I personalize my style 1 5% About half the time I personalize my style 6 30%
Most of the time I personalize my style 10 50% I always use a personalized style for each individual 3 15%
n = 29
Question 10 (Table 12) was intended to assess perceptions of how difficult the
assessment component of SL is for managers. 55% of respondents indicated this was
either somewhat or extremely easy.
Table 12
Question 10: How difficult or easy is it to diagnose follower developmental level?
Extremely easy 3 responses 15% Somewhat easy 8 40%
Neither easy nor difficult 4 20% Somewhat difficult 5 25% Extremely difficult 0 0%
n = 29
Question 11 (Table 13) was intended to discover the alignment between manager and
employee assessments of the developmental level of the employee. All respondents
indicated that these assessments were aligned half the time or usually.
38
Table 13
Question 11: How often do your assessment of follower developmental level and the self-assessment of that follower align?
Never 0 responses 0% Rarely 0 0%
About half the time 10 50% Usually 10 50% Always 0 0%
n = 29
Question 12 (Table 14) was intended to gather an overall assessment of the perceived
utility of SL as a management technique. All respondents indicated SL was either
medium or very effective.
Table 14
Question 12: How effective do you find Situational Leadership as a technique for managing?
Not at all 0 responses 0%
Somewhat effective 2 10% Medium effective 4 20%
Very effective 11 55% Extremely effective 3 15%
n = 29
Qualitative responses
As a final question of the survey, respondents were invited to share any comments
they had in a free-form text format in response to this detailed prompt:
Please provide any additional thoughts or comments that you have regarding
Situational Leadership. Responses about your use of SL in your work are
encouraged. Any information about what circumstances you implement SL in or
any barriers to implementing SL you experience are invited, including successes
and struggles using SL, which parts of the SL model you use, when SL works or
39
does not work, or use of SL amongst your leadership team. If you have more to
offer on assessment of employee development, alignment of employee
development, please do so here. Lastly, any comments on how time impacts your
use of SL and what other management tools you have been exposed to or prefer to
SL are invited. Your answers will be helpful in providing color to our data and
providing rich data that can inform our analysis.
Of the 29 respondents who completed at least some of the survey and the 20 that
completed all of it, seven left responses to the final open-ended prompt. Responses varied
from the short and general such as “SL takes time and practice” to more specific and
related to a particular question asked in the survey such as comments about the difficulty
in assessing employee levels as asked in question 10. There were no clear trends or
themes amongst the open-ended responses but there were answers that added more color
to some of the quantitative data collected in the prior questions.
Responses specific to survey questions. One respondent added some context to
questions 4, 5, and 10, which asked about switching styles, using multiple styles, and
difficulty of assessing development levels, respectively. The participant pointed out that
switching styles and assessing employees can be difficult due to the ‘on-the-fly’ nature of
their work environment. Another respondent added perspective to questions 4, 5, 6
(preferred style), 9 (how often do you personalize), and 10 by pointing out that they find
people have a default tendency but that they can check with others to confirm an
approach. This comment acknowledges one of the circumstances SL is suggested to
provide an alternative for–leaders using one preferred style–but suggests peer dialog
rather than SL itself as a solution. A possible causal factor for questions 6 and 7 (least
40
preferred styles) was raised by a respondent who described a higher success rate for style
two and lower for style one and four based on the experience level of the employees they
had supervised. Question 3, asking if use of SL was conscious or unconscious, was given
a temporal variable by a respondent who described a shift towards unconscious use over
time since SL training years ago.
General responses. One respondent tied individual effectiveness with SL to practice
and time spent. Another noted the high generalizability of SL to different retail and sales
environments and different employee incentive structures. Another listed contextual
challenges to using SL consistently, noting that when their environment and job
responsibilities changed, this interfered with effective use of SL. This participant also
indicated that sometimes structured work objectives such as change management aligned
better with using a sequence of styles that appeared to increase the effectiveness of SL.
Reults Conclusion
Of the 29 participants in the sample, not all participants answered every question.
Between 20 and 24 respondents answered each of the 12 quantitative questions from this
survey and seven provided additional qualitative color and commentary on the utility of
SL in their work. Responses indicated that most managers found SL easy to use, used it
often, and found it intuitive. Most managers indicated that they were flexible, attempted
to use all SL styles, and they provided information on preferred and not preferred styles.
Lastly, respondents provided information on customizing style to assessed developmental
level of employees and most indicated that they found SL to be useful in their work.
These retail manager survey participants present a new context amongst the research
on SL. Their responses were made to questions pulled from previous research as well as
41
to new questions formulated to assess the presence of findings about the potential
benefits of SL present in the literature. Discussion of the implication of the findings from
this survey and from the focus group convened to discuss the results will be presented
next in Chapter 5.
42
Chapter 5: Discussion
This purpose of this study was to gather manager perceptions of the utility of SL in
their work. SL has been a popular management model for many decades that has faced
research criticism that its theoretical foundations are weak and not all of its predictions
are manifest when it is implemented. The research done in this study investigated both
some possible reasons for SL’s popularity and potential benefits.
This chapter first summarizes the results from the data presented in Chapter 4.
Conclusions are then drawn and salient features discussed. Limitations of the study are
presented. Recommendations are made to the case organizations and also to OD
Practitioners. Suggestions for further research are lastly presented.
Summary of Results
Several clear findings emerged from the results of the study. Questions were grouped
around use of SL, flexibility, preference in style by managers, and assessment of follower
developmental level. Each of these areas produced meaningful data.
1. SL is easy to use and is frequently used by those trained in it.
Over 59% of survey respondents stated that SL was either somewhat easy or
extremely easy to start using. No one said it was extremely difficult. SL is widely cited as
being an easy-to-understand model and respondents to this survey confirm that. It was
also discovered that over 68% of respondents report using SL either most of the time or
always.
2. Managers consider themselves flexible in use of SL styles.
A core feature of SL is a recommendation to use different styles and over 68% of
respondents indicated they often or always use multiple styles. None indicated always
43
using just one style and only 9.09% indicated mostly using only one style. Over 90% of
respondents indicated that they attempt to use all 4 styles of SL.
3. Style three is the most preferred style and style one is the least preferred and most
difficult to use style.
There was a clear preference amongst this study’s sample for style three with over
77% choosing it as their preferred style. From the opposite perspective, the least
preferred style was style one as indicated by 75%. Additionally, style one was also the
style most selected as more difficult to use by respondents with 40% indicating this style.
These findings correspond to results from Avery and Ryan (2002) and Avery (2000).
4. Managers personalize their style for each individual employee.
Survey respondents reported personalizing their style for each employee to a large
degree. 95% of respondents reported doing so about half the time or more, with 65%
reporting doing so most of the time or always. This aligns with the literature that
indicated this behavior was found to be a significant potential benefit of SL.
5. Managers find it somewhat easy to diagnose the developmental level of
employees.
An important part of being able to match a leadership style to an employee’s
development level, as SL advocates, is to be able to accurately assess this development
level. In this study, 55% of respondents found assessing developmental level to be either
somewhat or extremely easy. This result contrasts with Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study
where respondents described having more difficulty assessing the two components of
competency and commitment that SL describes as combining to form development level.
44
6. Manager assessments of employee development level often or usually align with
the self-assessment of the employee.
Another finding in the research literature on SL, most specifically by Thompson and
Glasø (2015), was that alignment of manager and employee assessment of employee
development level was important. All respondents in this survey indicated that their
assessments aligned with their employee’s self-assessments either about half the time or
usually. No respondents indicated assessments aligned never or rarely although no
respondents indicated that assessments aligned always.
7. Managers found SL medium or very effective as a technique for managing.
90% of respondents indicated that SL was either a medium, very, or extremely
effective technique for managing. This is a strong endorsement of the utility of SL for the
work of retail managers.
Conclusions from Results
The survey used in this study reproduced a study by Avery and Ryan (2002) and
extended it to ask questions related to additional findings on SL from the literature. One
reason to ascertain the perceptions of managers about the utility of SL is to see if it might
be a component in the ongoing popularity of SL despite the criticism it has faced in the
research literature. Another goal of the research was to test if benefits of SL identified in
the research were present in the case population using SL.
1. SL is both liked by and useful to retail managers.
It is possibly the least surprising conclusion of this study. Many studies on SL
mention that it is popular and then go on to report substantiated shortcomings of the
model without revisiting why a flawed model might remain popular. Some studies
45
mention that there appears to be a discrepancy between the interests of the research
community that has identified problems with SL and organizations which continue to use
SL unphased by what has been discovered in the research. This study explicitly states
what others have not asked: managers who have been trained in SL both use it in their
work after the training and find it useful. Retail managers from this study, most of whom
had received training in SL three or more years ago, found SL easy to use, used it in their
work, and found it to be effective. This is not to say that the criticisms of SL are not
important contributions, but rather to add that there is a component of value found by
managers that can explain why SL is so widely used despite its shortcomings. The
common claim that SL is intuitive was also supported by this study.
2. Managers believe they use the SL model fully, including the three potential
benefits discussed in this study from the research literature.
Participants in this study largely indicated that they attempted to use all styles. While
it is important to note that research has found that only some styles of the four described
and advocated for in SL are supported as effective, it is also important to note that those
who are trained in SL do attempt to use all of its styles. One of the strongest research
findings on SL is the benefit of its advocacy for managers to use multiple styles. Results
from this study confirm that this benefit of SL is an outcome for respondents who
indicated that they are often flexible in style.
Another benefit of SL discovered in the literature was an encouragement to
personalize management styles for each employee with whom a manager works. Again,
results from this study indicated that a significant majority of respondents were
46
implementing this potential benefit of SL in the work they do with their respective
employees.
A third potentially beneficial outcome of the use of SL identified in the literature was
in contributing to an alignment between managers and their employees on each’s
assessment of the employee’s development level. Half of respondents to this study’s
survey indicated this was the case about half the time and the other half of respondents
felt it was usually the outcome.
3. Bias for and against styles is prevalent.
Despite respondents to this study’s survey indicating that they tried to use all styles
and frequently used many styles, they also indicated a clear preference for style three and
that style one was both preferred the least and the most difficult for them. Such clear
results for style three and against style one suggests that there is a strong possibility that
managers may be applying their own biases in selecting which management style to use
rather than basing it on the development level of the employee in question as indicated in
the SL model.
These results are congruent with the findings from Avery (2000) and Avery and Ryan
(2002) who found that Australian managers similarly preferred to use style three and
would also put effort into avoiding use of style one through techniques such as delegating
to others employee development tasks that required style one direction. Avery and Ryan
(2002) expected to find in their research that SL training mitigated style preferences
amongst managers but did not find that. The results from this study therefore extend
Avery and Ryan’s (2002) findings to a different context and likely cultural sample.
47
4. Manager confidence in assessment of employee developmental level may be
higher than is useful for the manager, the employee, or the effective use of SL.
Accurate assessment of employee developmental level is a key component of the SL
model given that matching a leadership style to that development level is the key
behavior in SL. Furthermore, research by Thompson and Glasø (2015) indicated that
coming to an agreement with an employee about that employee’s developmental level
makes all of SL’s predictions more likely to hold. This study found that most managers
found assessment of developmental level to be somewhat or extremely easy and that
alignment on developmental level with employees was common. However, Avery and
Ryan (2002) found the opposite result, that assessment was difficult. Thompson and
Glasø (2015) found that mismatch in assessment of development level was as likely as a
match in some categories and nearly as likely in others.
One possible line of reasoning to explain why this study found alignment of
assessment to be relatively easy could be the characteristics of the sample population.
Perhaps the population of retail managers experiences some unique characteristic or set
of characteristics that makes alignment easier, such as high familiarity with employee’s
responsibilities or job tasks, high amount of hands-on or proximal working with
employees, close relationships and knowledge of employees, or other variables. If this
were the case, the use of a unique population would add variety and depth to the research
literature on SL rather than suggesting a problem with this study’s methods or data.
The focus group that looked at the results of this study’s survey was also surprised at
the results that indicated ease of assessment and high alignment of development level.
Three members of the five person focus group indicated that these results did not align
48
with their personal experience. One speculated that these results may have reflected more
that the respondents understood the model of SL and less that they were able to gain
alignment on developmental level.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study including the sample size, the instrument
used, and the readiness of the respondents to participate.
1. Sample size.
The sample size of 29 is not as large as it might have been. It is possible that the
trends revealed from responses by 29 people would have been different had more people
responded to the survey, thus adding power to the results. Additionally, the non-random
nature of using the professional network of the researcher may have introduced a bias in
the responses, either from over-representing a non-representative company’s employees,
over-representing a point of view more common amongst the researcher’s contacts than
in the broader population of retail managers, or through other means. Furthermore, some
demographic data not captured about the respondents makes certain data difficult to
compare or analyze. For instance, it is difficult to tell if one retail company is
overrepresented in the sample as employer data was not captured. Likewise, a
comparison between the Australian respondents to Avery and Ryan’s (2002) similar
study is muddied because respondents to this survey were not asked to indicate which
country they live in.
2. Selection of instrument
The choice to use a survey and the specific questions used in the survey impacted the
results of this study. This study replicated and extended Avery and Ryan’s (2002) study,
49
but that study used interviews to gather data while this study used multiple choice and
Likert-scale questions in an online survey. This choice was made intentionally to gather
specific answers to questions in the survey rather than the broader and deeper but perhaps
less focused answers that may have resulted from interviews. However, one difficulty
encountered that may have biased the results lay in formulating the Likert-scale answers
available to respondents when a non-standard scale was used. Some questions, such as
question 1 and 2, used standard responses to for their Likert-scales such as extremely
easy, somewhat easy, neither easy nor difficult, somewhat difficult, etc. or never,
sometimes, about half the time, etc. but other questions used more arbitrary possible
answers constructed by the researcher. For example, question 4 offers the possible
responses of “always use one style, mostly use one style, sometimes use multiple styles,
often use multiple styles, always use multiple styles”. It is possible that questions with
non-standard Likert-scales do not offer possible answers that accurately capture the
desired response a survey participant would have liked to select. The instrument used did
not gather possibly relevant data, such as information on the type of SL training that the
participant experienced or the participant’s skill at utilizing SL. These data may have
provided additional insights if the instrument included them.
Additionally, while this survey chose not to use instruments commonly used in other
studies of SL such as the LBDQ-XII because they would not provide answers to the
questions this study asks, this choice reduces the opportunity to compare results of this
survey to other research previously conducted by not using one of the instruments used in
other studies. This study also avoided using instruments criticized in the literature as self-
referential (Northouse, 2013), but that does not mean that the instrument used here is not
50
also eligible for the same criticism. Particularly, it was noted by the focus group that the
sequencing of questions may have unintentionally directed respondents to answer
questions with the response that was most in line with the recommendations of SL rather
than the answer most reflective of their worked experience as a manager.
3. Readiness of respondents to complete survey.
The respondents to this research survey indicated that for many it had been some
years since they had participated in SL training and this may have had an impact on the
results of the survey. Respondents were offered a webpage with a brief review of the
basic components of SL as a reminder before they took the survey, but it is not known
how many reviewed this material or if reviewing this material may have impacted
answers given. Focus group members suggested that the length of time since many
survey respondents had had training in SL might indicate that they were being less
precise in their answers than they might have been if the training had been more recent.
4. Researcher bias
Researcher bias may also have been a compounding factor with the limitations of the
instrument used. Researcher bias may have made its way into the survey through the
construction of the questions asked, through the construction of the answers available to
select from, or from the sequencing of the questions. The focus group members did not
raise the issue of researcher bias in regard to the survey instrument, but they did raise it in
regard to the non-random sample due to the use of the researcher’s professional network
as a path to discover eligible participants.
51
Recommendations
Recommendations for retail organizations and other managers. Given the results
and conclusions of this study, some recommendations for further implementation of SL
can be made. Firstly, noting the positive reception and high use of SL by retail managers
who have been trained in it, it is recommended that SL continue to be used amongst this
population and for other managers. Research that discounts or disproves some of the
predictions made by SL does not address whether people enjoy using it. Since other
research finds benefits to SL and this research confirms those benefits, it is prudent to
continue to give managers a training which they like, use, and that has demonstrated
benefits.
Secondly, this research further underlines a need for an evolution or addition to SL
itself to specifically address bias found amongst practitioners towards use of particular
styles. While not all styles have proven equal in outcome in other research studies, the
presence of bias towards style three and away from style one is a factor that needs to be
addressed in both the SL primary sources and in any training that delivers the SL theory
and methods.
Thirdly, results in this study about the ease of assessment and frequency of alignment
of assessment that disagree with prior studies and focus group assessments suggest that
more rigor be added to the process of assessment within SL and SL training. This study’s
results suggest that managers trained in SL may be too cavalier about assessing
development level or may not be aware of the significance of this aspect of SL to the
overall utility and effectiveness of the model. Making a more robust structure or
providing specific methods of assessment could address these concerns around
52
assessment. However, the universality of SL and the specificity around development
level in specific roles or tasks will present a difficult obstacle in ascribing assessment
methods that are accurate or useful in all circumstances. It may be more serviceable for
SL to specifically recommend that each workplace or organization that wishes to use SL
for managers also be directed to develop or chose development level assessment methods
that will work for the employees, roles, and tasks present in that workplace or
organization.
Recommendations for organization development practitioners. Those who focus
on organization development (OD) task themselves with considering the health and
potential growth of an entire organization from many possible angles including individual
fulfillment, group dynamics, inter-departmental relations, shared values, common
mission, change, sustainability, strategy, and the alignment or misalignment of any or all
of these factors. To an OD practitioner, SL can serve as an important tool given that
managers are important in organizing the efforts of employees, disseminating the vision
and values of the organization, and honoring the individuality of those who report to one.
Results from this study suggest that SL training is valued by managers and there are
several aspects of SL that are in line with the values of OD, including customizing
leadership style to each employee and coming to agreement with employees about their
developmental level. OD practitioners who work with an organization that already
utilizes SL or who implement SL would be well served to pay particular attention to the
recommendations above for style bias and developmental assessment. Undiscovered or
unaddressed style bias by managers could limit the effectiveness of SL in an organization
or promote certain values while demoting others that may be against the interests of an
53
aligned organization that OD promotes. Similarly, inability or mis-ability of accurately
assessing development level or coming to agreement with employees over development
level may cause organizational ineffectiveness or reduced valuing or participation in the
organization by all members.
Of particular importance in addressing style bias are the results of this research and
the Avery (2000) and Avery and Ryan (2002) studies which indicate managers tend to
avoid style one out of personal preference for style two or three. This is problematic for
two reasons. Firstly, it leaves the needs of an employee at developmental level one
unfulfilled. An employee is left to their own devices to develop their ability and
confidence when their manager demonstrates these tendencies. Secondly, amongst the
research on SL, style one is the most strongly supported and validated style. Therefore,
the most proven and effective aspect of SL is left as the most under-implemented. For an
OD practitioner, this knowledge should be deployed with efforts to specifically address
the responsibilities of managers and needs of developmental level one employees to have
task specific directive assistance provided.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study has extended the research on SL to a new context with the population of
retail managers that have participated, and it has asked new questions to better address
gaps in the research literature. There are many opportunities remaining for further
research already identified in prior literature and this study introduces more.
The extension of SL to new contexts was a recommendation made by Zigarmi and
Roberts (2017) that this study took up and can still be applied to countless new contexts.
Similarly, recommendations by Zigarmi and Roberts (2017) to conduct longitudinal
54
studies of SL were not addressed by this study and remain valuable paths of
investigation. Future research on SL should also be careful to adhere to SL’s scope of
matching manager style and developmental level per specific job task and not more
generally, as discussed in the literature review.
An additional opportunity at large lies in accessing data potentially already collected
by organizations that have used SL training for their employees. It is not clear what form
this data may exist in, but it is likely that there are at least some correlational data-sets
available within organizations that may show if SL training had impacts on performance
metrics, employee satisfactions, engagement, commitment, or other variables that these
organizations may measure. If this data cannot be found, a quasi-experimental design
could be set up with access to an organization who is delivering SL training. More
simply, follow-up surveys for employees who participate in SL training could be
administered to assess the effectiveness of the training.
The data set from this study also contains additional potential paths of analysis that
could provide information on the utility of SL. For instance, the survey used in this study
gathered data on gender of respondents but whether the character of responses varied by
gender was beyond this study’s scope and was therefore not analyzed. Similarly, time
since most recent SL training was collected from respondents, but it would not have
served the primary research question of this study to analyze how this variable impacts
use of SL. Some survey respondents seemed to suggest distance from training would
improve skill in SL through practice, while others indicated this time contributed to a
shift in use from conscious to unconscious. Blanchard (2013) suggests regularly
revisiting the training. The utility of this recommendation could be investigated through
55
the data set from this survey or more through additional research. Similarly, experience in
management was a variable collected in this survey but not analyzed due to lack of
correspondence to the primary research purpose. For researchers who would like to know
more about how SL is received and used, this could be a lucrative avenue of research to
investigate if management experience impacts perceived utility of SL.
An area of curiosity within the results of this study was the bias towards style three
and away from style one. While suggestions from this study include addressing this in
training, it would also be a topic rich in opportunity for deeper research, particularly
across cultures to determine contributing factors and cultural variances. Since style one is
the most validated style within the body of research on SL, the data suggesting it is
actively avoided by leaders is an important piece to understanding how to achieve the
potential effectiveness of SL.
Lastly, in order to better address the curiosity of this study as to what factors
influence the ongoing popularity of SL despite its criticisms in the research, a study
which focuses on the decision makers within organization who chose to implement the
training would be revealing. Asking these deciders what factors they are using to make
the choice to implement or continue implementing SL would provide an important point
of view on why and how SL has remained popular.
56
References
Avery, G. C. (2001). Situational leadership preferences in Australia: congruity, flexibility and effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110380183
Avery, G. C., & Ryan, J. (2002). Applying situational leadership in Australia. Journal of
Management Development, 21(4), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210423784
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-Based
Practice in Psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271-285. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational Leadership® After 25
Years: A Retrospective. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179199300100104
Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (2013). Leadership and the one minute
manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership II. New York: William Morrow and imprint of HarperCollins.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishing Company. Blank, W., Weitzel, J. R., & Green, S. G. (1990). A test of the situational leadership
theory. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 579–597. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02397.x
Can, A., & Aktaş, M. (2012). Cultural values and followership style
preferences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 84-91. Carlos Do Rego Furtado, L., Da Graça Câmara Batista, M., & José Ferreira Silva, F.
(2011). Leadership and job satisfaction among Azorean hospital nurses: An application of the situational leadership model. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(8), 1047–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01281.x
Corkery, M. (2017, April 15). Is American Retail at a Historic Tipping Point? The New
York Times, Retreived from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/15/business/retail-industry.html
Fernandex, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: a test
of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 67-84. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
57
Goodson, J. R. (1989). Situational Leadership - A Test of Leadership Presciptions. Group & Organization Studies, 14(4), 446–461.
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The
Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The Forgotten Ones? The Validity of
Consideration and Initiating Structure in Leadership Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Korman, A.K. (1966). Consideration, initiating structure, and organizational criteria: a
review. Personnel Psychology, 19, 349-361. Lewin, K., Lippett, R., & White R., (1960). Leader behavior and member reaction in
three social climates. Group Dynamics : Research and Theory (Second Edition), D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Evanston,IL: RowPeterson & Company.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, R. (1980), Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of
leadership, Academy of Management Journal, 23(3), 451-465. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (Sixth Edition). Thousand
Oaks: Sage. Papworth, M. A., Milne, D., & Boak, G. (2009). An exploratory content analysis of
situational leadership. Journal of Management Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910972706
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 5, 603-609.
Reddin, W. J., (1967). The 3-d management style theory. Training and Development
Journal, April, 8-17. Silverthorne, C., & Wang, T.-H. (2001). Situational Leadership Style as a Predictor of
Success and Productivity Among Taiwanese Business Organizations. The Journal of Psychology, 135(4), 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980109603707
Sims, H. P., Faraj, S., & Yun, S. (2009). When should a leader be directive or
58
empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons, 52(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.10.002
The British Psychological Society. (2011). Good practice guidelines on the use of
psychological formulation. Leicester, UK. The Center for Leadership Studies. (2018), Situational Leadership Training &
Management Model by CLS. Retreived from http://situational.com The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2017). What Do We Know About Development Level?
Escondido, CA. The Ohio State Leadership Studies. (1962). Leader behavior description questionnaire-
form xii self. Columbus, OH: Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University.
Thompson, G., & Glasø, L. (2015). Situational leadership theory: a test from three
perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-10-2013-0130
Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three
versions. Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014
Vecchio, R. P. (1987). Situational leadership theory: An examination of a prescriptive
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(3), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.444
Yeakey, G. W. (2002). Situational leadership. Military Review, 82(1), 72. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (Eighth Edition). Essex, England: Pearson
Education Limited. Zigarmi, D., & Roberts, T. P. (2017). A test of three basic assumptions of situational
leadership II model and their implications for hrd practitioners. European Journal of Training and Development, 41(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-05-2016-0035
59
Appendix A
Vocabulary and Synonyms used in SL Literature
60
Vocabulary and synonyms used in SL literature consideration, initiating
structure, leaders, members, maturity, motivation, ability,
supportive, directive, managers, subordinates, readiness, willingness, skill,
relationship, task, supervisors, supervisees, development, commitment, competence,
employees, confidence,
61
Appendix B
Full List of Research Questions
62
Full List of Research Questions
1. How hard was it for you to actually start using SL? (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan,
2002)
2. How often do you use SL in your work? (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
3. If and when you use SL, would you say this use is “conscious” and intentional or
“unconscious” and intuitive? (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
4. How flexible in style do you believe you are as a manager? (reproduced) (Avery
& Ryan, 2002)
5. Do you attempt to use all styles? (yes or no) (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
6. What style(s) do you prefer? (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
7. Which style(s) do you prefer the least? (reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
8. Are there any of the styles that you find more difficult to use? (reproduced)
(Avery & Ryan, 2002)
9. How often do you personalize your management style for the individuals you
manage? (derived) (Thompson & Glasø, 2015; Avery & Ryan, 2002)
10. How difficult or easy is it to diagnose follower developmental level? (reproduced)
(Avery & Ryan, 2002)
11. How often do your assessment of follower developmental level and the self-
assessment of that follower align? (derived) (Thompson & Glasø, 2015; Avery &
Ryan, 2002)
12. How effective do you find Situational Leadership as a technique for managing?
(reproduced) (Avery & Ryan, 2002)
63
13. Please provide any additional thoughts or comments that you have regarding
Situational Leadership.
a. Responses about your use of SL in your work are encouraged.
b. Any information about what circumstances you implement SL in or any
barriers to implementing SL you experience are invited.
c. Consider including successes and struggles using SL, which parts of the
SL model you use, when SL works or does not work, or use of SL
amongst your leadership team.
d. If you have more to offer on assessment of employee development,
alignment of employee development, please do so here.
e. Lastly, any comments on how time impacts your use of SL and what other
management tools you have been exposed to or prefer to SL are invited.
